Open Letter to Mormon
Bishops and to Nonmormons about Mormon Missionaries

by Pat Goltz

This writing is about my experiences talking to Mormon missionaries. I want to
try to give you my perspective, and to make suggestions of how I would like to
see things change. Most writings about Mormons are either in support of the
Mormon church, or they are attacks on doctrines or practices. In this writing,
I plan to take a different look at the situation. I plan to look at the way in
which the Mormon church wins converts, at the process of discussing with them in
the early stages, before they are baptized. I cannot talk about what happens
after baptism, because I have not agreed to be baptized. I will discuss the
reasons for that later. My purpose here is to try to build bridges between
Mormons and the rest of the world. I am very upset by the isolationism that
occurs between tight-knit groups such as the Mormon church and outsiders. I
believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and that there are many
ways to avoid confronting the truth. One of the ways is isolation. A group that
isolates itself from the ideas of others is suggesting to the world that it
knows it does not have the truth, and that it must depend on subterfuge. I am
sure that the Mormon church would not like the world to believe this about
itself, so for this reason, I hope Mormon leaders will pay attention. Knowing
how you come across to the general public can be very helpful, don't you think?

Several years ago, I decided to agree to talk to some Mormon missionaries. I
did this for several reasons. The first is that I wanted to learn more about how
Mormons look at things. The second is that I wanted to try to build some bridges
between Mormons and the rest of us. You call us Gentiles, but I consider the use
of that term to be antisemitic, because it implies that they are the true Jews.
So I will not use the term.

I have talked to a total of sixteen different individuals. Most of them were
missionaries, and were addressed as "elders." A few were other people. One was
an elderly man who is part Irish and part Cherokee, and he was providing
transportation. Another was a man in his thirties, I guess, who just wanted to
be there. Maybe. Mormon missionaries go on what they call "splits." Ordinarily,
two Mormon missionaries live together, but sometimes they do not talk to a
potential convert together. The church orders them to take other partners for
the night. Thus, each missionary teams up with someone else, to make two teams.
This is one reason why I talked to so many people. Evidently, they do this only
on certain nights. Maybe. The whole structure is quite fuzzy. But it is very
efficient from their point of view. There are a lot of reasons why I believe
this is so. The primary reason is that I believe the leadership does not want
any one individual exposed to any particular person too much. This way, if that
person raises too many objections to Mormonism, it will not affect the young
man too much, because he does not have too much contact with that one person.

Please note that there is a hidden assumption here that seems to be common to
several tight-knit groups. It is that they cannot count on the truth to hold
people. They have to resort to tricks. I will describe several other tricks as
well.

Before I get into that, I want to comment more generally. I want to make it
clear that I do not question anyone's sincerity. I am not in a position to
speculate on this. The fact that the missionaries answered all my questions
readily enough, even giving answers that I would have expected they would hold
back, is a tribute to their apparent sincerity. There is only one question that
seemed to give them pause, and I never asked it directly. It has to do with what
goes on in the temple ceremonies. I realize that they won't answer the question,
and I don't want to put them on the spot on this issue right now. But I must
point out that I am not used to such secrecy.

There is a fundamental issue in regard to secrecy. I consider truth to be of
paramount importance. It is interesting that the Mormon church does not appear
to share that perspective, because people kept telling me that I can believe
whatever I want. It seems that there is no real penalty for believing a lie. I
disagree, but that is another topic. Since I believe that the truth is of
paramount importance, then it follows that it is important to make everyone
aware of the truth. You don't do this by keeping it secret. If it is vital for
people to have information, then you make it public. The Bible is full of
references to the importance of this. "In secret have I done nothing." "Do not
hide it under a bushel basket." The Pearl of Great Price, likewise, speaks of
secret combinations, and condemns them. Secret ceremonies which are not
revealed to people until after they have committed themselves are thus
condemned. The Mormon church considers those temple ceremonies to be very,
very important for reaching the pinnacle of the Mormon faith. Yet, a person is
being asked to join the Mormon church without knowing what he is getting into.

It is fundamental that anytime major teachings are concealed, and as a result,
a person has a false picture of what is being taught by the religion as a whole,
this is fraud. Soon, there will be court cases on this. No person should be
asked to commit to something without being told what he is committing to. This
is like asking a person to sign a contract without reading it. A contract only
commits a person's money. Money is expendable. Religious fraud commits a
person's eternal future. It is unconscionable to defraud a person in the area
of spiritual concerns! Mormon church, you are guilty of fraud for practicing
secrecy. You present yourself to the world as holding beliefs which are
fundamentally Protestant Christian, when in fact, you teach a very different
set of doctrines. This is concealed by changing the definitions of words, and
by mirroring back a Christian's testimony.

Mormon leadership, listen up. You are defrauding potential converts. You are
asking people to commit to something they don't even understand. When a person
submits to your spiritual authority without knowing everything you teach, he is
betraying his own integrity. He acquiesces. Any person who joins the Mormon
Church is asked to give it a blank check drawn on his integrity, and he responds
by signing this check. The consequences are paid in his eternal future.

How can Mormon leadership claim to be sincere under the circumstances? Isn't it
a case of getting young, idealistic men to present the picture of sincerity, to
cover up the attitudes of the leadership, which is in it strictly for the
exploitation? Why cannot we confront you directly? Why is the only face
presented that of young, inexperienced and untutored men?

In our discussions, it became necessary for me to spend the bulk of my time
informing the newcomer of what had happened in our previous discussions. This
meant that we never had time to cover much new territory. I don't mind repeating
myself, but I have been there to ask questions, and this means I get fewer
questions asked.

I will give you a synopsis of what happened in our discussions. This portion of
this writing will be given to each new person who comes to talk to me, to save
me time.

In the first discussion I had, I asked the missionary where the universe came from.
I was pointed to a passage in the Book of Abraham, where it says, "And there stood one
among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will
go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make
an earth whereon these may dwell;" Abraham 3:24. I then asked, where did the
materials come from? I never got an answer to this question, not even to this
day.

Unless an eternal God creates the materials out of nothing, there is no answer.

Next time, I asked a question regarding evidence of the authenticity of the Book
of Mormon. This question is rather complex, and requires an explanation first.
Here is what I always explain: literary historians examine the authenticity of
historical documents. They have devised three tests. The first is called the
bibliographic test. In this test, literary historians examine the copies of the
work. For each work, the originals have never been found. They want to know how
many copies exist, and when the earliest copy was made, which is to say, the
number of years after the original was written. For example, they examine
Caesar's Gallic Wars in this manner. For each historical document which is
contemporary with the New Testament, with the exception of the New Testament,
they found at most 700 copies of the document. The earliest copy was made no
less than 1100 years later. For the New Testament, on the other hand, we have
25,000 copies, and the earliest copy was made only 50 years after the original.
In addition, we have 1000 copies of the Old Testament. The accuracy of the Old
Testament copies was guaranteed by an error-checking process known as Gematriya.
In this process, each letter of the Hebrew alphabet has a numeric value. Each
word in the original, and each word in the copy, is given the numeric value of
its letters, and then the values are added. If the sum of the word in the
original does not equal the sum in the copy, the copy is thrown out, and the
process is started over. After many pages are thus produced, they are glued
together to make a scroll. The Old Testament mandated that copies that were worn
out must be buried. We can now find these copies. The Bible has, by far, the
best authority according to the first test. The second test of literary
historians is called the external test. By means of this test, an external
authority comments on the authenticity of the document. The Bible, for example,
was authenticated by the Jewish historian Josephus, who was an enemy of
Christianity. He documents that both Jesus and the Christians existed. Early
church fathers told us who wrote some of the books of the New Testament. These
authors actually existed. The third test is called the internal test, and it
has to do with what the document says about its own authenticity. The Bible
has passages that say things like, "we were eyewitnesses to his majesty," "This
thing was not done in a corner [i,e, it was done openly]." Speaking to Agrippa,
Paul said, "as you yourself know." There was plenty of opportunity for outsiders
to challenge the truthfulness of the apostles' claims. There was no successful
challenge.

The question, then, was, is there similar evidence for the authenticity of the
Book of Mormon? Everyone I asked said, "No." This is not strictly speaking true.
There are statements that meet the criteria of the external and internal tests.
However, there is no bibliographic authority for the Book of Mormon. The golden
plates are missing. We do not even have a copy of the original. We have only a
translation. As for the external test, I have been offered two documents. The
first is one signed by three witnesses. The second was signed by eight
witnesses. "Since I have a background in law," I protested, "but I cannot
cross-examine these witnesses, please tell me who they were, and what
happened to them." Since they could not provide me with information, I researched
this question on my own. I learned that several of them either left the Mormon
church or were excommunicated. This is not a very good record. Some of the sites
that critique Mormonism can give you more information. I have seen the documentation,
but do not have it ready at hand. What about the internal test? The Book of Mormon
includes a number of verses that state that the authors were writing their own
ideas. Nowhere did they attribute these ideas to God. In a couple of other
places, it is stated that the writings are an abridgement. In other words, the
text was tampered with. In a couple of places, it claims that these are the
words of God. But the Book of Mormon lacks the repeated statements that riddle
the Bible, of "Thus saith the Lord."

The bottom line was that the real evidence for the authenticity of the Book of
Mormon is a feeling. Feelings are experienced whenever a person prays to God to
ask if the Book of Mormon is not true. (Notice the negative here: we are to pray
to see if the Book of Mormon is not true. Do we have an experience if it is true,
or do we have one if it is not true?) This is according to Moroni 10:4, "And when
ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal
Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a
sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it
unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."

What happens when a person prays this way? He gets a feeling. "But behold, I say
unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right,
and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall
feel that it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall
have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore,
you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me." D&C 9:8-9.

I have always told my children never to make a decision based on feelings. Feelings are
unreliable. Decisions must always be based on logic and evidence. Even in
affairs of the heart, like the issue of whom to marry, one must use logic. Of
course, one must love the person, but if it is not logical to marry him or her,
then the feelings must be subjected to the logic. I have had disasters in my
family because they have made decisions based on feelings.

I asked each missionary to describe the feeling. None of them could give me a
clear picture of it.

Let us talk about another problem with feelings. That is the source of the
feelings. There are three possible sources. The first is God. The second is an
evil spirit. The third is oneself. For example, if I have a bout of indigestion,
I experience a feeling. I can induce feelings by taking herbs. A positive
feeling can also be induced. We call that a peak experience. I have a peak
experience whenever I play a Toccata and Fugue by Bach on the organ. Abraham
Maslow, a third force psychologist, wrote a book called Religions, Values,
and Peak Experiences. In this book, Maslow points out that when people have
ecstatic experiences in the context of a religion, they decide the religion is
true. People have ecstatic experiences in all religious contexts. Are all
religions true? No. They contradict each other. For this reason, ecstatic
experiences do not address the question of whether the religion is true, and
this makes this test for the truth of a religion unacceptable.

Let us look at one of the sources of a possible feeling. That is evil spirits. I
will present this one by example. Some years ago, a friend of mine who was
Catholic used to ask me to read books about a series of events at Fatima,
Portugal. Three young children said they saw an apparition of the Virgin Mary.
She appeared to them a number of times, and each time she came, she told them
when to expect her next. Each time, there were more people present. The other
witnesses would see the sun wheeling in the sky and things like that, but only
the three children saw the Virgin Mary. The Virgin asked the children to tell
people to pray the Rosary for the conversion of Russia. The Rosary is an
idolatrous prayer, because it prays to someone other than God. It is
repetitious, and violates the biblical principle, "But when ye pray, use not
vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be
heard for their much speaking." Matthew 6:7. Do I question whether or not the
children saw something? No. Do I question whether or not the other people saw
the sun wheeling in the sky? No. I accept that these things happened. What do I
question? I want to know WHO the Virgin Mary was. Was it actually Mary, or
was it a demon impersonating Mary? If I give a Mormon this example, he can
clearly see what I am getting at. But can the Mormon apply it to his own situation?
If he gets a feeling in response to his prayer as to whether the Book of Mormon is
true, where does the feeling come from? Does it come from God, or from a demon? How
can he tell? The answer is, one cannot tell. This makes the test worthless.

Here we have a strange anomaly. This is a church that encourages a person to get
as much education as possible. But when it comes to measuring the validity of
its teachings, this church demands that a person ignore his brains and rely on
feelings. Go figure.

The next topic of discussion was my investigations to attempt to demonstrate the
truth or falsity of the many historical statements in the Book of Mormon. It is
full of claims about the history of people who were allegedly descended from
Lehi and his four sons, or from Jared and his brother. I investigated this by
studying external evidence. I studied precolumbian Mesoamerican art history. I
started from this perspective. I also have access to the library at the
University of Arizona. There are thousands of dictionaries, grammars,
and other information about precolumbian American languages. I have access to
the Summer Institute of Linguistics. I can use their library, and their staff
has spoken to me freely. The emphasis at this center is on native American languages,
and there are many Bibles, dictionaries, and grammars of these languages in
their possession. I have access to a book called the Ethnologue, which contains
a short paragraph describing each and every language of the world. I have been
able to speak to its editors on several occasions; they are currently residing
in Hawaii. I watched the video entitled "Ancient America Speaks," which was
produced by the Mormon church. I also studied the book Exploring the Lands of
the Book of Mormon by Joseph L. Allen, Ph.D. Dr. Allen is a Mormon with ties to
Brigham Young University, which is a Mormon university. I made a list of the
languages he lists on page 36. I was able to obtain dictionaries or other books
in each of these languages except two. In addition, I obtained dictionaries of
other Mesoamerican languages. From these dictionaries, I made charts. One of the charts
was made of four Pacific island languages, because of the claim that eventually Lehi's
descendants crossed the Pacific and settled on the islands. From these charts, I was
able to draw some conclusions. Each chart contains approximately 120 basic words. The
charts contain columns. The first column is the English. Second is Hebrew. Third
is Egyptian. The remaining columns are the languages I am investigating. The
correlation among the Pacific island languages in particular was striking. I
spoke to my informant in Hawaii, who indicated that most likely these languages
diverged a couple of millenia ago. We would then expect to see some of the same
correlation between Hebrew and Egyptian, which resemble each other, on the one
hand, and either Mesoamerican or Pacific island languages on the other. There is
no correlation. For this reason, it is true that Lehi and his sons did NOT
bring either Hebrew or Egyptian with them, and pass it down to their
descendants, provided any of their descendants are still alive. I examined the
possibility that there were borrowed words. I could not find any.

Not long after that, I had the opportunity to read The Puzzle of Ancient Man
by Donald E. Chittick. Dr. Chittick did not write with the Book of Mormon in mind.
He studied books produced by authors affiliated with the Institute for Creation
Research and other creationists. He also studied other books. His thesis is that
there was regular trade going on between the Americas and the countries near the
Indian Ocean. His thesis differs from the claim of the Book of Mormon in that
the Book of Mormon and the Mormon church claim that Lehi's migration was a
one-time event. There is a vast difference between trade on a regular basis and
a group settling in a new land and propagating itself. I found no support for
the Mormon thesis of Lehi and his sons in this book, and when I talked to the
author, he told me he does not either.

In addition to examining the languages, I examined other aspects. One aspect
mentioned in "Ancient America Speaks" is the music of the precolumbian peoples.
The statement is made that the musical scale resembles that of Europe. This is
a curious statement because the Hebrew scale and the European scale are somewhat
different. At first, I said that I believe that the reason for the resemblance
is that there are certain mathematical relationships between the notes of the
scales. I said that all the scales with which I was familiar except one all had
notes that fit into this mathematical framework. In India, they use quarter
tones, but the structure is the same. Other scales simply use fewer of the
notes. In Japan and China, they use a pentatonic scale that is based on the same
mathematical framework. Scales in Asia Minor, which includes Israel and the Arab
countries, are based on the same mathematical framework. I decided that the
reason for the resemblance was because the American inhabitants used the same
mathematics and arrived at the same scales. I was wrong. I spoke to a woman who
has been studying Mexican precolumbian music. She is affiliated with the
Summer Institute of Linguistics. She said that the real reason why the scales
were the same is because the Europeans imposed their scales on the natives.
She said the native music is almost totally gone in Mexico. However, she gave me
two contacts who have recorded music that has been unaffected. She said that
this music was very different. Even though I was wrong, the evidence still does
not support the thesis that Lehi and his sons came to the Americas.

I also examined the art. I compared Mayan hieroglyphics with Egyptian. They are
a totally different style. I compared mesoamerican sculpture of human figures to
that of the Pacific islands. I could not compare it to that of the Hebrews
because they were forbidden to make images of humans, and when they disobeyed,
ultimately most of that work was destroyed. The fact that Hebrews were forbidden
would indicate that Lehi would most likely not be making such art in the first
place. The existence of the art argues against the Mormon thesis, but weakly,
because of Hebrew disobedience of God's command to make no images of humans. For
this reason, the comparison between Mesoamerican and Pacific island human
figures was more interesting to me. I noticed that aquiline noses were prominent
in Mesoamerican art, but absent from the Pacific island art I have. I also
noticed that Pacific island art sometimes included double lips, which are
totally absent from the Mesoamerican examples I have.

I examined the mythology. I have books on Mesoamerican mythology and on Pacific
island mythology. There is no resemblance between this mythology and the Book of
Mormon or the Bible. Mention of Quetzalcoatl in "Ancient America Speaks"
prompted me to pay special attention to him in the Mesoamerican mythology. He
does not appear throughout the region, and he does not appear in the Pacific
island mythology at all. The myth of Quetzalcoatl does not give weight to the
idea that he is Jesus. In fact, Quetzalcoatl is a plumed serpent. The serpent is
a symbol of Satan, and the Mormon religion holds that Satan is Jesus' brother,
whom God did not allow to enact his plan for mankind. In Christianity, the
serpent, being the symbol of Satan, is evil. To equate Quetzalcoatl to Jesus,
therefore, is blasphemy.

I also examined the pyramids of Egypt and the pyramids of Mesoamerica. The
architecture is totally different. The pyramids of Egypt appear to have smooth
sides from a distance, although close up you can see the individual blocks form
a stairstep appearance, but the overall effect is of geometric smoothness of four
sides on a square base. The ones in Mesoamerica are what I would call Step
Pyramids. I found a Spanish text which states that there is no connection
between the two. I present my own translation of this text elsewhere. I also
compared other features. Mesoamerican pyramids have a stone
staircase; Egyptian pyramids do not. Mesoamerican pyramids have temples on
their summit, which is in the form of a rectangle. Egyptian pyramids end in a
point. In addition, Egyptian pyramids were the tombs of pharaohs. Dr. Chittick
said that some pyramid tombs were found in Mesoamerica, but the fact is that
none of these pyramids resemble Egyptian pyramids in their architecture.

Dr. Chittick said that rafts of the same design as those used along the Nile
are also in use around Lake Titicaca in Peru. He said this is evidence of trade.
He did not believe this is evidence that Lehi and his sons settled in the
Americas.

I also examined the geography. I made a list of the place names in the Book of
Mormon. I asked the missionaries to supply me with a map of these sites. They
said they could not. The reason given was that not enough exploration had been
done. I then found a map of precolumbian sites in the same book containing the
Spanish essay on pyramids. There are hundreds in the area covered by Dr. Allen's
book alone. This argument that there is not enough exploration is false. I have
found no correspondence between any place name on this map and any place name in
the Book of Mormon.

The conclusion I have had to reach is that I have personally found no evidence
to support the authenticity of the historical material in the Book of Mormon. I
explained this to the missionaries, and their response was to urge me to be
baptized. They said I could continue to study this and if I decided later it
was false, I could leave. I responded by saying that to be baptized was an act
of submission to the spiritual authority of the Mormon church, and that I cannot
submit to its authority until I have determined that the Book of Mormon is
genuine and that the Mormon church is based on something real.

The missionaries were quite honest about the fact that they believe only in the
Bible insofar as it is correctly translated. I have pointed out that this is not
a problem for me, because I can read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek.
Sometimes in our discussions, I refer back to the original text in the Bible.

One time we got into a discussion of the Trinity. I pointed out that the Hebrew
grammar substantiates the idea that God is a composite unity. That is that God
is one in substance, not merely in purpose. Throughout the Old Testament, God
is referred to with a singular noun used with a plural verb, or a plural noun
used with a singular verb. When God visited Abraham, He appeared as three men.
I presented in particular, Deuteronomy 6:4. In the Hebrew, this reads, "shma,
Yisrael, adonai eloheinu adonai echad." Literally, this means, "hear, Israel,
lords our god lords one." Adonai is plural. The singular is "adon." The word
"echad" is especially interesting. It has the connotation of being composite.
Absolute unity is indicated by the Hebrew word "yachid." "Echad" is used in the
Bible to describe one group of something, such as a bunch of grapes, or two
people being united as one flesh in marriage. I gave an analogy. Consider an
apple. Every cell of the apple contains the same genetic code for this apple. So
it is one apple. At the same time, it has seeds, flesh, and skin. The seeds are
not the flesh, the flesh is not the skin, and the skin is not the seeds. Yet, it
is one apple. In the same way, Christians believe that God is one God,
completely unified. But God the Father is not God the Son, God the Son is not
God the Holy Spirit, and God the Holy Spirit is not God the Father. Three
persons, one substance. After finishing this explanation, one missionary said
that my explanation of the Hebrew grammar had strengthened his testimony that
there are three gods and that they have a relationship like a marriage. There is
none so blind as he who will not see. Do not ever think, O Christian, that the
Mormon church is Christian. In this point alone, the Mormon church contradicts
historic Christianity.

The Book of Mormon is monotheistic. That is, it teaches only one God. The Pearl
of Great Price and the Mormon church are polytheistic. That is, they teach that
there are many gods, and that someday men can become gods. The Mormon church is
not based on the Book of Mormon. It is based on the Pearl of Great Price. I
present more information on this in my essay
"The Trinity in the Book of Mormon."

Mormon missionaries have been honest with me about their polytheism. I think
that people who are lacking in knowledge who study with them never hear about
this. This is because they do not know what questions to ask. They will learn
about it after they commit to the church. There appear to be three levels of
truth in Mormonism. There is what they tell outsiders voluntarily. There is
what they are willing to admit when asked. There is what they will not discuss.
This church has what we call "insider doctrines." These are teachings that are
taught only to the inner circle. "Insider doctrines" is a cult mind control
technique. I challenge the Mormon church to abandon this technique and become
completely open. It is fraud to keep information secret that will change the
thinking of people, to keep it from them until after they make a commitment.

If you are seeking a religion, please heed my words. Always ask for a statement
of the doctrines of the group. If you do not receive one, then run the other
direction. If you do receive one, read it carefully. Then ask if it is all the
doctrines that are taught. If you sense any hesitation, then run the other
direction. Only religions that do not defraud will tell you all of their
doctrines up front. Religions that defraud will keep some of them secret. You
will not learn of them until you are too involved to turn back.

If you are seeking a religion, please heed my words. Always examine not only
what the religion tells you about itself, but also what its critics say. Do
not commit to any religion without having studied both sides. If you do not mind
being defrauded, then ignore my recommendation. I guarantee you that most
religions will defraud you if given the chance. All that you need to do to avoid
fraud is to look at both sides. I warn you: if you get involved in a religion
and then discover it to be false, you will probably find it impossible to become
a Christian, because you will have been inoculated against it. This will leave
you with no hope.

The situation reminds me of some experiments that were done with dogs. Dogs must
drink water to stay alive. In this experiment, the dogs received an electric
shock every time they approached the water to drink. Eventually, the dogs were
willing to die of thirst rather than approach the water. It is so with any
person who gets involved in a group that distorts the Bible. You will be trained
to react in a predicted way to the Bible. Once you leave the group, when you
read the Bible, you will react the same way you have been programmed. In this
way, you receive a spiritual shock every time you try to drink of the water of
life. This is the price you will pay for dabbling in what you have not bothered
to verify. Without access to the spiritual water of life, you will experience
spiritual death. Only by the grace of God would you be spared this. This is
rare. Do not tempt God.

Each time I have presented unanswered questions and reached an impasse, it has
been the response of that missionary to refuse to talk to me further. I respond
that I would never refuse to talk to anyone who wanted to discuss my beliefs
with me. I consider the refusal to talk to me to be an act of cowardice and an
admission that my questions cannot be answered. It is an admission that they
cannot prove that the Mormon religion is true.

(Since I originally wrote this letter, I have had occasion to stop discussing
my beliefs with a couple of people, mostly because I was spending a lot of time on it,
and we were making no headway in any direction whatsoever. But except for those cases,
I still never refuse to discuss my beliefs with anyone who wants to talk to me.)

Since I originally wrote this letter, I also participated in a discussion in the forum on
amazon.com, which consists of 20,000 messages, a substantial number of which I contributed. As
time permits, I will use some of those messages to write additional essays for this site.

Why am I being asked to swear allegiance to something that cannot defend itself?

The fact that I keep getting new missionaries to talk to is a sign of weakness.
The fact that missionaries will no longer talk to me after a certain point is
a sign of weakness. Perhaps the church can protect its missionaries from
deciding for themselves whether or not it is the true church, but it cannot
prevent them from thinking about what I have said in the long run. Nothing is
gained in the long run because more people get exposed to my ideas and thinking.
Will the church eventually decide to shun me entirely? This will be an admission
of failure. I am much more interested in dialog and in a mutual search for the
truth. An honest and courageous man can admit when he has been mistaken. A man
who cannot admit this, but continues to present what he now knows to be false,
is acting fraudulently.

Beware spiritual fraud.

P.S. At the time, the Mormon church had been advertising free copies of the King
James Bible. They got a lot of responses to these ads. Did you know that their
King James version contains a lot of editorial comments linking the Bible to the
Book of Mormon? This is just another example of subterfuge. They claim they only
believe the Bible insofar as it is correctly translated. They lure people with
what they believe to be inaccurate. Ultimately, they persuade people to believe
things that contradict the Bible, even in its original languages. Beware
spiritual fraud.